Parallels in Christian reactions to ministry among new religions and Islam

I have some of my written materials uploaded at an Academia.edu page, and I get regular recommendations from the website on articles I might be interested in based upon what I click on. Recently, the website suggested I take a look at an article by Martin Accad titled “Mission at the Intersection of Religion and Empire” from the International Journal of Frontier Missiology from 2011. Readers might remember that I’ve interviewed Accad previously on his recent book. This article is an interesting read, and several things jumped out at me that I’ll mention in this post.

The main thrust of the article deals with differing ways in which Christians minister to and among Muslims. In his discussion, Accad considers two evangelical approaches to Islam. He notes that evangelicals tend to be suspicious of interfaith dialogue, including dialogue with Muslims, particularly since 9/11. Those evangelicals opposed to dialogue, whom Accad labels “Islam-antagonistic,” charge their fellow evangelicals with “naivete and of ignorance of the true nature of Islam.” Related to this is the charge that involvement in such dialogue compromises the evangelical emphasis on mission. This group is in contrast with those Accad labels “Islam-friendly,” and have “a more positive vision of Islam.” This identification of distinct approaches by evangelicals in response to Islam is paralleled in ministry to new religions. Many, perhaps most evangelicals, tend toward an antagonistic stance in regards to “the cults,” and prefer apologetic or polemical approaches. Those who engage in dialogue with new religions, such as the Evangelical-Mormon dialogues that have been going on for many years and in different contexts, are often dismissed as naive and failing to provide due diligence in pointing out the true and dangerous nature of the religious other.

The paper also discusses the binary assumptions many evangelicals have in ministry Muslims. Either one engages in mission and proclamation of the gospel, in keeping with the spirit of evangelicalism, or one is involved in dialogue, often assumed to be the purview of liberal Christians. Accad challenges this either/or thinking:

”The emergence of a new generation of missionaries in a post-modern, post-Christian, should we say post-Christendom era forces us - whether we like it or not - to abandon any dichotomy. An emerging generation of missionaries (who usually prefer to think of themselves as development workers, peacemakers, or NGO personnel, rather than missionaries) is giving up on any fake missionary ‘platform.’”

This removal of the binary is a challenge for both traditional interfaith advocates, and many conservative evangelicals. Those involved in interfaith often bristle at the idea of incorporating any interest in persuasion in dialogue efforts. Instead, the purpose is usually seen as simply understanding. That is a major goal, but why stop there? If we all follow religious traditions because we believe them to be true and personally meaningful, why not invite others to consider a similar embrace in a respectful, mutual effort at persuasion as part of a dialogical process? Persuasion over what we hold most dear is an important part of many aspects of our lives, so it seems forced to bracket it off from religious conversations. For evangelicals who see dialogue as inferior and in opposition to dialogue, Accad’s suggestion that the binary be removed brings dialogue into multifaith relationships and conversations as one part of a multifaceted process.

I was pleasantly surprised in reading this article to find the parallels between Christian reactions to ministry among new religions in America (my past ministry context), and ministry among Muslims outside the U.S. It appears that there’s something in evangelical social identity that leads many to prefer a boundary maintenance approach to ministry that clearly marks the “us” of Christianity out against the “them” of Muslims or new religionists. Whatever the reasons for this, Accad’s article provides some interesting food for thought.